1. Field
This application relates to a hose controlled sprinkler device and control method therefor that provides for remote control of a liquid output from the hose controlled sprinkler device by a substantially unidirectional movement of a hose connected to the sprinkler device.
2. Prior Art
Watering a lawn, especially a large lawn requiring the use of a relatively long water hose(s), using a conventional sprinkler can be a laborious and time consuming task. The labor and effort required are compounded by having to turn the water on and off when moving the sprinkler to a new location in order to prevent the user from getting wet. The procedure for moving an operating sprinkler to a new location is usually accomplished by performing one of the two following procedures.
The first procedure is to walk to the sprinkler connected faucet and turn the water off, then walk to the sprinkler and move it to a new location, and finally, walk back to the faucet and turn the water back on. As can be visualized from using this procedure, considerable time and effort are required due to the relatively long walking distances involved, especially when the sprinkler is located far from the faucet.
The second procedure is to (1) walk to the hose outside of the sprinkling range and bend the hose approximately 180 degrees to pinch it and thereby, restrict the water flow, (2) then while holding the hose in the pinched condition, drag the hose while walking to the sprinkler, (3) next, while maintaining the pinched condition of the hose with one hand, pick up the sprinkler with the other hand and move to the next sprinkling location while holding the sprinkler and dragging the hose and then set the sprinkler down, and finally, (4) while still holding the pinched hose, walk away from the sprinkler dragging the hose until out of the sprinkling range and then releasing the pinch in the hose to turn the sprinkler back on. This second procedure does not usually require as much walking as the first procedure but still requires excessive hose and sprinkler manipulation and relatively extensive dragging of the sometimes long and heavy water filled pinched hose which are undesirable tasks. In addition, the hose pinching method used in the second procedure usually does not turn the water completely off so that the sprinkler continues to release water while in the act of holding and moving the sprinkler, which further compounds the problems in the second procedure.
In an attempt to overcome the problems of turning the water on and off at the faucet or pinching then dragging the hose, several prior art sprinklers and related devices have been developed; however, they all suffer from a number of deficiencies and drawbacks.
U.S. Pat. No. 2,830,614 issued Apr. 15, 1958 to Willaim F. Pralle presents a hose valve that can be attached to a sprinkler or lengths of hose whereby, the water can be turned on and off by swinging the valve input hose from side to side which in turn rotates a valve housing causing an internal valve disc to tilt to and from its seat resulting in the water flow through the valve being turned off and on, respectively. While this hose valve can provide for remote on-off water control outside of a sprinkling range of the sprinkler, thereby, keeping the user from getting wet, it has a number of major disadvantages, namely: (1) the valve has to be manually pushed into the ground, as an additional step, which is difficult to accomplish, especially if the ground is dry and hard, (2) whether the valve is connected directly to a sprinkler or an output hose, the valve input hose has to be swung over relatively long distances by walking in an extended arc about the valve, outside of the sprinkling range, in order to not get wet, (3) when swinging the hose about the valve in an unidirectional direction, the sequence of valve output states are an on state, an off state and an on state due to the inherent physical valve housing stops applicable to the on states, (4) when the valve is open, the valve disc is tilted from the valve seat which results in restricted water flow because water can only flow from one side of the valve, (5) the valve has to be connected to an existing sprinkler in order to provide a sprinkling function, and (6) the valve requires a number of moving parts which increases the cost and opportunities for malfunction.
U.S. Pat. No. 2,761,733 issued Sep. 4, 1956 to Irving J. Preus presents a garden sprinkler control system that permits sprinkled water output from the system to be on-off controlled outside of the sprinkling area. The control system includes a gate valve, a long flexible shaft, a rotatable handwheel and a sprinkler. One end of the flexible shaft is connected to a gate valve element of the gate valve and the other end is connected to the handwheel with the sprinkler being connected to the output of the valve. The input to the valve is connected to a water source. Rotating the handwheel in different directions makes the gate valve element move which in turn, makes the gate valve open and close; thereby turning the water flow to the sprinkler on and off, respectively. In order for a user to not get wet when changing sprinkler locations, the flexible shaft has to be longer than the sprinkling range radius so that the on-off states of the sprinkler can be remotely controlled outside of the sprinkling area. As with the previously stated U.S. Pat. No. 2,830,614 issued to Pralle, the garden sprinkler control system, described in U.S. Pat. No. 2,761,733, provides for remote on-off water control outside of the sprinkling range, but it has several major disadvantages, namely: (1) since the flexible shaft has to be relatively long, it would be awkward, bulky and laborious and therefore, not conducive to moving the control system and a control system connected hose to new sprinkling locations, (2) judging from the number of threads involved to move the gate valve to open and closed states, the handwheel would have to be rotated numerous times which makes the on-off sprinkler transition time relatively time consuming, (3) the sprinkler control system is relatively complex due to its many parts which increases the cost and opportunity for malfunction, (4) the sprinkler control system is heavy due to its complexity and long flexible shaft, and (5) to maintain functionality in a wet environment, the long flexible shaft would have to be made from corrosion resistant materials and/or sealed which also adds to the cost.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,813,655 issued Sep. 29, 1998 to Gordon A. Pinchott, Richard A. Nielsen, and John W. Rosenbloom and U.S. Pat. No. 6,283,139 issued Sep. 4, 2001 to Randall R. Symonds, David A. Paul, and Scott Jacobs present a remote control on/off valve and a remote controlled hose valve, respectively, which are examples of several patented devices that relate to the radio control of sprinkler operation. Radio controlled devices of this type usually include a transmitter and a receiver controlled valve. The receiver controlled valve is generally connected in series between a faucet and a water supply hose which is in turn connected to a sprinkler. In operation, a user usually carries the transmitter and pushes a button on the transmitter to signal the receiver controlled valve to change its output states; thereby, remotely turning the water flow to the sprinkler on and off as required during the sprinkling operation to prevent the user from getting wet when changing sprinkling locations. Since the valves are electronic devices, there are several disadvantages, namely: (1) electronic devices are expensive, (2) electronic devices require frequent replacement of batteries, (3) electronic devices are subject to significant malfunction and expensive to repair, due to the relatively large part count, (4) generally, the transmitter must be carried by the user, (5) the transmitter is subject to being easily lost or misplaced, and (6) both the transmitter and the receiver portion of the receiver controlled valve are subject to water ingress which is detrimental to the inherent electronic circuitry.
While these prior art sprinklers and related devices provide for remote on-off control of sprinklers to prevent users from getting wet when changing sprinkler locations, they all suffer from problems, deficiencies and/or drawbacks. Thus, there continues to remain a need in the art for an inexpensive, simple-to-use, user friendly, and reliable sprinkler device which provides for remote control of the output of a sprinkler, to prevent users from getting wet while changing sprinkler locations, that: (1) can provide remote sprinkler output control in an off state, an on state and an off state sequence by the substantially unidirectional pulling of the sprinkler device connected hose, (2) significantly reduces walking when changing sprinkler locations, (3) significantly reduces dragging of water hoses when changing sprinkler locations, (4) significantly reduces time required to change sprinkler locations, (5) requires a minimum number of parts, (6) integrates a sprinkler or is configured to connect to a conventional sprinkler, (7) does not require manually pushing into the ground, and (8) has a low probability of malfunction.